I've studied the film industry, both academically and informally, and with an emphasis in box office analysis, for 28 years. I have extensively written about all of said subjects for the last ten years. My outlets for film criticism, box office commentary, and film-skewing scholarship have included The Huffington Post, Salon, and Film Threat. Follow me at @ScottMendelson and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Ben Affleck As Batman, And The Price Of Artistic Freedom

As I’m sure most of you heard last night, Warner Bros. announced that they have found their new Bruce Wayne/Batman for the Superman/Batman team-up Man of Steel sequel set for July 17, 2015. Your new Batman in the (presumably) 3D IMAX adventure helmed by Zack Snyder is not Christian Bale (who apparently turned down Warner Bros.’ offer of all the money) or Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but Ben Affleck. What this buys Warner Bros. is a major added value element, one of the bigger stars of the last fifteen years playing Warner’s most iconic character, with all of the free publicity and audience awareness that comes with that. What this buys Affleck is a lifetime of artistic freedom as a producer and/or director.

With three critically-acclaimed directorial efforts under his belt, the last one being the Oscar-winning Argo, along with a somewhat revived acting career highlighted by strong turns in Hollywoodland, State of Play, and To the Wonder, Warner Bros. needs Ben Affleck as Batman quite a bit more than Ben Affleck needs to be Batman at this point in his career. While Affleck will surely get a solid payday for this, this surprise casting is basically Affleck doing a favor for the studio that distributed two of his three directorial efforts (the two, The Town and Argo, that made money, natch) and seems to truly want to turn Affleck into the second coming of Clint Eastwood. He is the rare mainstream director that can get a major studio to fund his moderately-budgeted R-rated, adult-skewing genre pictures. But this is more than just payback. I can only presume that Affleck expects to be paid forward for the next twenty years.

Ben Affleck the actor is probably the biggest out-and-out movie star outside of maybe Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio who Warner could have logically gotten for the role, unless they were willing to go bold and bring in Will Smith or Denzel Washington. With Affleck’s casting, Warner Bros. gets a major press-friendly movie star who will bring attention and interest to the Superman/Batman film far beyond the geek-friendly circles. Ben Affleck as Batman gets the film two years of periodic coverage not just in geek-centric movie websites but in every major tabloid and talk show, with fever pitch in all outlets in the months prior to release. We’ll know in two years if this was a good artistic choice, at the very least, it highlights that Warner Bros. has little interest in developing the Superman franchise they just started, but Ben Affleck as Batman is a huge marketing win. Aside from getting Bale back, snagging a star of Ben Affleck’s caliber is probably the smartest play Warner Bros. could have made from a commerce prospective.

So the question is, why would Ben Affleck, who allegedly turned down the chance to direct a hypothetical Justice League movie late last year, now be gung-ho for playing Batman in a series of DC Comics movies? Affleck has spent the last several years rebuilding himself from the early 2000′s nadir where he was a glorified punch line thanks to films like Gigli, Reindeer Games, Pearl Harbor, and the sadly literal Paycheck (that he snuck in a career-peak turn in Changing Lanes should not be entirely ignored). He never really stopped being a moderate box office draw in the right project, but his reputation as an actor paled in comparison to Matt Damon as Damon went the “serious thespian” route while Affleck wanted to be a “movie star”. Playing Batman in a somewhat artistically-questionable tent-pole runs the risk of hurting his carefully cultivated acting comeback, so why risk it? The answer is “because of everything else he gets to make”. Ben Affleck just cemented his relationship with Warner Bros. by doing them the biggest favor he possibly could. And now they owe him big time. For Mr. Affleck, if the movie hits box office gold and paves the way for Justice League, Warner Bros. is basically in his debt for life.

If this works, and for the moment let’s presume it does, Ben Affleck has earned almost complete artistic freedom for any movie he ever wants to produce or direct for Warner Bros. for the rest of his natural life. As a filmmaker of the kind of old-school dramas and star-driven potboilers that are so hard to get made in this day and age, Affleck playing Batman means Affleck gets to craft pretty much whatever filmography he so chooses, so long as he dons the Bat suit every few years. The immediate sacrifice is the possible delay of his next directorial project, the Dennis Lehane adaptation Live By Night. This guarantees that Affleck becomes the new Clint Eastwood of Warner Bros., with the complete freedom to make as many movies like Live By Night as he so chooses. Assuming Ben Affleck uses his clout to make more movies like Gone Baby Gone (his first and still best directorial effort, distributed by Disney back in 2007), this really is a win/win for all parties.

Warner Bros. gets one of the biggest movie stars in the world to play their most important franchise character, while Ben Affleck gets to make whatever he damn well pleases in between stints as the Dark Knight. And if we end up with Jennifer Garner as Wonder Woman in Justice League, well that’s just a bonus. And audiences of all stripes win out too. They get the benefit of Ben Affleck as Batman no matter on which side of the fence they fall. If you like comic book action films, you get to enjoy Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne, presumably without the studio skittishness that crushed his turn as Matt Murdock ten years ago (the R-rated director’s cut of Daredevil is much better than the theatrical cut). If you hate comic book movies and prefer “films for grownups”, you can ignore these comic book adventures and instead enjoy the various adult-skewing films that Ben Affleck produces and directs on Warner Bros.’ dime for the foreseeable future. If you liked both The Dark Knight Rises and Argo, well then you make out best of all.

I have no idea how Ben Affleck will fare as Batman, and I still think a Superman/Batman movie is a bad idea from a long-term artistic standpoint. This major casting coup pretty much establishes that Warner Bros. doesn’t care about any DC properties outside of Batman. And this is frankly a big win for Chris Nolan too, basically setting him free from managing the DC cinematic universe and allowing him to make more films like Interstellar and fewer “I don’t want to be here” comic book adventures. If I were Paramount (distributor of Interstellar), I’d immediately offer him a three-film first-look deal and make Paramount, not Warner Bros., the home of Nolan. But the somewhat surprising play from a major filmmaker who doesn’t need the easy payday or the big blockbuster star turn speaks to more than just Warner Bros. getting the biggest possible movie star to play Batman. It may well be a shrewd business decision on Affleck’s part, arguably sacrificing Ben Affleck the actor to ensure the continued artistic legacy of Ben Affleck the director.

In a skewed sense, Bruce Wayne has taken the hit so that Batman can thrive. We’ll see how this plays out, but for now let’s see if they do the right thing and cast either Dwayne Johnson (for commerce) or Chiwetel Ejiofor (for art) as Lex Luthor.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

So you went on and on for a whole article about how Affleck could be great as Batman and how a Justice league movie would be great for him and Jen Garner. Then, in the last paragraph said that you think the movie as a whole is a horrible idea. Did two different people write this thing or something?

It would be great for his directing career. That doesn’t change my thoughts on the idea of a Batman/Superman team-up movie this soon in the new franchise. Two different thoughts, neither of which contradict each other.

I personally feel that this is a short sited maneuver for Warner. They have yet to reestablish Superman(out of touch super hero) and in order to do so they are going to risk damaging Batman. Then Warner Bro. decides to make a risque maneuver by picking a dull Bruce Wayne and destroy the next trilogy that is already set up for this well established blockbuster franchise. I see a massive risk for little reward.

That’s not what the article said at all. The article discussed three POVs: the audience, the studio, and Affleck.

He said Affleck would be great as Batman – in other words, the studio and the audience benefit. Then he said (sort of jokingly) that Jennifer Garner could play Wonder Woman, which would be great for the audience. The author thinks the studio made a winning decision – that this was a best-case scenario for the studio because they’re making this film anyway, and getting someone the caliber of Affleck is good for the STUDIO.

He also explained Affleck’s motivations, and that Affleck might be taking this role to earn credit with the studio and the clout to get his directorial projects funded. There is a risk to Affleck, because if the movie tanks, his acting reputation might be hurt (again), and as the author pointed out, Affleck has worked hard to rebuild his acting career.

Finally, the author suggests the Batman/Superman movie might not be the greatest plan ever. But the studio is going forward with this film, and so someone has to be cast in the role of Batman. So while the author might prefer Batman going solo (again), since that isn’t happening, he likes Affleck in the role.

People don’t understand. This is the MOST IMPORTANT ROLE of the latter part of Affleck career. If he BOMBS he will return﻿ to being the Joke he was 10 years ago. For that reason I believe Affleck is taking this role VERY SERIOUSLY because he knows what it’s like to have a crappy comic book movie and the humiliation that comes with it. For that reason I think he’s going to knock it out of the park

it’s like when my mom made me eat liver for the first time and it tasted horrible. She kept trying to convince me it would taste better the next time. it doesn’t matter if they like Ben Affleck for Batman. Trying to force-feed it to every one else will just leave a bad taste in their mouth.

I’m having a hard time finding anyone’s list of top bankable actors with Ben Affleck on it. Remove Ben’s behind the camera work, and he is more known for flops than hits; far more Razzies than Oscars. Warner is doing Affleck a favor, not the other way around.

I do agree that if the movie is a success, Ben Affleck will have limiteless clout in Hollywood. Given how Ben Affleck is not nearly the actor George Clooney or even Val Kilmer is, I highly doubt he will do a better job playing the role of Batman.

these movies are 99% fan-based. the other 1% being people who come to see what all the fuss is about. why not someone like Ian Somerhalder from the Vampire Diaries? I’m sure Ben knows whats on the line and will try to do his best batman ever but, first you’ll have to convince the people who buy tickets first.

I’ve seen something like it before. Namely, people (mostly younger fanboys) flipping out and raging against the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman back in the 1980s. And flipping out and raging about the casting of Heath Ledger as the Joker.

The nastiness and anger and claims that “oh my god it’s teh worst casting of all time nooo!” about Keaton was much louder than the anti-Affleck reaction today. And the anti-gay remarks, gay jokes, insults about him as a pretty-boy and too young and not serious enough and worse than the other options etc toward Ledger was likewise as bad as the anti-Affleck venom today.

Fans freak out about casting and insist it’s the worst thing that ever happened in the world constantly, and it’s always hyperbole and silly.

15-year-olds (and 45-year-olds with the same emotional maturity) will lash out at anything that they didn’t think of themselves, and only like things in retrospect. Especially the ones who can’t separate actors from the roles they’ve played before. These are the same kinds of people who (in addition to the Keaton and Ledger histrionics) wailed about Ian McKellen being cast as (concentration-camp survivor) Magneto because he’d played a Nazi in a previous movie.

While I don’t share Mendelson’s apparent belief that Affleck is a demigod celebrity that’s doing Warner a big favor by agreeing to be in their little megabudget Superman movie, the general public doesn’t hold a grudge against him just for being in a lackluster Daredevil movie.

Batman shouldn’t be a main attraction in the next Superman movie. Give some character development (other than being the love interest) for Lois Lane for Gods sakes! When you have Amy Adams in your movie, its criminal to under utilize her.

Now coming to the issue at hand – Affleck. As a director, he gets the thumbs up from me. As an actor, that too as the next incarnation of Batman – HELL NO! End of story. I’m not going to either MOS 2 or JL if he’s Batman.

Darkly brilliant, coldly factual, and deliciously cynical take on this casting choice…which convinces me that Mr. Affleck will turn in a good performance as Batman if for no other reason than to guarantee his directorial canvas for life. Your perspective brought the logic behind Warner’s decision into sharp relief, and makes the wait more tolerable, if somewhat less suspenseful. Thank you for this reassuring shot of quid pro quo reality for a fanboy still prone to naive illusions.

This is the most repetitious, self-contradictory commentary piece I’ve read in a long, long time. Sadly, intelligent and valid points are made but they’re buried under unnecessary repetition and asinine viewpoints.

Remember the public out-lash regarding Johnny Depp cast as Tonto in the Lone Ranger! The public’s conception matters quite a bit… And Ben Affleck is nowhere near as accomplished as Johnny Depp and Warner Brothers has so much more to lose with this movie than the Lone Ranger.

Your numbers 5 and 6 actually made me throw up a little. The difference between Michale Keaton, Heath Ledger and Ben Affleck is that the former are and were fantastic actors. Your entire article is centered on the possible fiscal gains of the franchise which are almost certainly hyperbole. I also doubt Christopher Nolan is happy about this, or Frank Miller for that matter, both genuinely good writers.

I’m pretty sure you’re replying to the wrong article. Go find Mark Hughes’s piece. :-) And I’m sure Chris Nolan is thrilled about this because it means he can jump ship from the DC Universe and do his own thing.

Frankly I don’t care who plays Batman. But since its is in the powers that be to recreate and revive the career of Ben Affleck based on a bad career move and romantic risk. Gigli, which also I did not see, being that I was and am not a fan of his anyway. Oscar Award winning writer director, whatever of “Good Will Hunting”, and having done other decent films I suppose. Could not help the film or the relationship he ruined. Both, his and hers, Jennifer Lopez, could not save the film, its direction or its writing. Just a fluff “piece”. The fact that he is in the fortunate position to have friends in high places and now in a “REAL” Marriage and relationship brings him back in favor and graces of society. Thank goodness for George Clooney and Matt Damon. Jennifer will not and is still somewhat not taken as seriously since that film. But Yes, Jennifer Garner, needs work as well lets, help these two little appreciated actors and family, have successful and meaningful jobs…….White in America even in film is so blatant.